BMC endocrine disorders · 2022
Real-world effectiveness of IDegLira compared with intensified conventional insulin therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Szépkúti Sándor, Bandur Szilvia, Kovács Gábor, Ferenci Tamás, Svébis Márk M, Turbucz Piroska, Tabák Ádám G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: IDegLira is a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide with proven efficacy against simpler regimens and non-inferiority against basal-bolus insulin therapy. However, the evaluation of its real-world effectiveness is hindered by technical issues and requires further exploration. Thus we aimed to compare effectiveness of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus intensified conventional insulin therapy (ICT) for type 2 diabetes in a real-world setting.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study from an outpatient clinic in Hungary included people who initiated IDegLira due to inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c > 7.0% [53.0 mmol/mol]) with oral and/or injectable antidiabetic drugs. Data were compared with a historical cohort who initiated ICT. Outcomes included HbA1c, body weight, and hypoglycaemia differences over 18 months of follow-up.
RESULTS: Data were included from 227 and 72 people who initiated IDegLira and ICT, respectively. Estimated mean difference (MD) in HbA1c at 18 months favoured IDegLira versus ICT (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.88-0.32 [MD 6.6 mmol/mol, 95% CI 9.6-3.5]). More people reached target HbA1c ≤7.0% (53.0 mmol/mol) with IDegLira than ICT (odds ratio 3.36, 95% CI 1.52-7.42). IDegLira treatment was associated with weight loss compared with gain for ICT (MD 6.7 kg, 95% CI 5.0-8.5). The hazard ratio for hypoglycaemia comparing IDegLira with ICT was 0.18 (95% CI 0.08-0.49).
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IDegLira over 18 months resulted in greater HbA1c reductions, weight loss versus gain, and a lower rate of hypoglycaemia versus ICT in people with type 2 diabetes.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study from an outpatient clinic in Hungary included people who initiated IDegLira due to inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c > 7.0% [53.0 mmol/mol]) with oral and/or injectable antidiabetic drugs. Data were compared with a historical cohort who initiated ICT. Outcomes included HbA1c, body weight, and hypoglycaemia differences over 18 months of follow-up.
RESULTS: Data were included from 227 and 72 people who initiated IDegLira and ICT, respectively. Estimated mean difference (MD) in HbA1c at 18 months favoured IDegLira versus ICT (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.88-0.32 [MD 6.6 mmol/mol, 95% CI 9.6-3.5]). More people reached target HbA1c ≤7.0% (53.0 mmol/mol) with IDegLira than ICT (odds ratio 3.36, 95% CI 1.52-7.42). IDegLira treatment was associated with weight loss compared with gain for ICT (MD 6.7 kg, 95% CI 5.0-8.5). The hazard ratio for hypoglycaemia comparing IDegLira with ICT was 0.18 (95% CI 0.08-0.49).
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IDegLira over 18 months resulted in greater HbA1c reductions, weight loss versus gain, and a lower rate of hypoglycaemia versus ICT in people with type 2 diabetes.